JOHNSON OBOGO v GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In an extradition case involving alleged prison and immigration-detention conditions, an Article 3 claim requires evidence showing a real and sufficiently individualised risk of inhuman or degrading treatment. General reports identifying serious concerns do not necessarily cross that threshold. The court must assess the evidence relating to the relevant detention facilities as a whole, including systems for inspection, supervision and enforcement of standards. An Article 3 assurance is required only where the evidence arguably establishes a risk requiring such protection. A lower court commits no arguable error by considering pandemic-related evidence prominently, provided it addresses the wider detention conditions and all materially relevant facilities.

The appellant, a Nigerian national wanted for extradition to the United States, challenged the decision to extradite him on Article 3 ECHR grounds. A District Judge had considered evidence concerning criminal, immigration and other detention facilities in the United States, including evidence about Covid-19, overcrowding, food, segregation, sanitation and water. The Home Secretary ordered extradition on 10 December 2021. Permission to appeal was refused on the papers, and the appellant renewed his application before the Administrative Court.

The central issues were whether the District Judge had focused impermissibly on Covid-related conditions and whether the evidence concerning possible immigration detention established an arguable Article 3 risk requiring an assurance.

1. Renewed application refused. The District Judge had committed no arguable error of approach.
2. The District Judge’s prominent consideration of Covid-related detention conditions was understandable because the oral submissions below had concentrated on that issue. However, the judgment also addressed the wider picture and assessed the relevant criminal, pre-trial, Bureau of Prisons and immigration detention facilities.
3. Evidence concerning immigration detention had to be assessed substantively despite the possibility that such detention might represent only a limited part of the appellant’s detention in the United States. The evidence was generic and did not establish a real risk specific to the appellant of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR.
4. Reports identifying expired food, overcrowding, segregation issues, mouldy bathrooms and undrinkable water raised serious concerns, but the court cautioned against extracting isolated examples from reports concerning particular facilities and treating them as representative of all immigration detention. The evidence did not, even arguably, cross the Article 3 threshold.
5. The material concerning inspections, supervision and enforcement of detention standards was relevant. The ICE document recorded commitments to safe, secure and humane environments and an inspections programme. Those matters, read with evidence of inspections in operation, did not require a specific assurance because the threshold for requiring one had not been reached.
6. Having considered the evidence afresh, the court reached, with confidence beyond reasonable argument, the same conclusion as the District Judge on prison conditions and Article 3 compatibility.

1. District Judge: Following an oral hearing on 9 September 2021, the District Judge referred the case to the Home Secretary on 26 October 2021.
2. Home Secretary: An order for extradition was made on 10 December 2021.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): Permission to appeal was refused on the papers. The renewed application was refused by Fordham J.